Originally Posted by muethibp
And does the team have any moral/ethical obligation to set aside the team's best interests to protect the health of the player, even one that might not be around over the long-term? Interesting issue.
Exactly where I was going with the post. A RB in the NFL would have a longer career in a RBBC situation rather than a featured back. However they would cash in for more $$$ in a shorter 5-6 year career than a decent journeyman with a longer 8-10 year career (the Law Firm as a good example). Same with the relievers, pumping the stats for a few years would likely yield a bigger payday.
To be argued if multiple innings, fewer times a week might actually prolong a career. In the case of Chapman, the Reds should maximize the asset they have (within reason) as with 99% certainty he won't be a Red past his FA window.